New Zealand’s early response to the novel coronavirus pandemic included a strict lockdown which eliminated community transmission of COVID-19. However, this success was not without cost, both economic and social. In our study, we examined the psychological wellbeing of New Zealanders during the COVID-19 lockdown when restrictions reduced social contact, limited recreation opportunities, and resulted in job losses and financial insecurity. We conducted an online panel survey of a demographically representative sample of 2010 adult New Zealanders in April 2020. The survey contained three standardised measures–the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10), the GAD-7, and the Well-Being Index (WHO-5)–as well as questions designed specifically to measure family violence, suicidal ideation, and alcohol consumption. It also included items assessing positive aspects of the lockdown. Thirty percent of respondents reported moderate to severe psychological distress (K10), 16% moderate to high levels of anxiety, and 39% low wellbeing; well above baseline measures. Poorer outcomes were seen among young people and those who had lost jobs or had less work, those with poor health status, and who had past diagnoses of mental illness. Suicidal ideation was reported by 6%, with 2% reporting making plans for suicide and 2% reporting suicide attempts. Suicidality was highest in those aged 18–34. Just under 10% of participants had directly experienced some form of family harm over the lockdown period. However, not all consequences of the lockdown were negative, with 62% reporting ‘silver linings’, which included enjoying working from home, spending more time with family, and a quieter, less polluted environment. New Zealand’s lockdown successfully eliminated COVID-19 from the community, but our results show this achievement brought a significant psychological toll. Although much of the debate about lockdown measures has focused on their economic effects, our findings emphasise the need to pay equal attention to their effects on psychological wellbeing.

BackgroundNatural disasters are increasing in frequency and severity. They cause widespread hardship and are associated with detrimental effects on mental health.AimsOur aim is to provide the best estimate of the effects of natural disasters on mental health through a systematic review and meta-analysis of the rates of psychological distress and psychiatric disorder after natural disasters.MethodThis systematic review and meta-analysis is limited to studies that met predetermined quality criteria. We required included studies to make comparisons with pre-disaster or non-disaster exposed controls, and sample representative populations. Key studies were identified through a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO from 1980 to 3 March 2017. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for studies that reported key outcomes with appropriate statistics.ResultsForty-one studies were identified by the literature search, of which 27 contributed to the meta-analyses. Continuous measures of psychological distress were increased after natural disasters (combined standardised mean difference 0.63, 95% CI 0.27–0.98, P = 0.005). Psychiatric disorders were also increased (combined odds ratio 1.84, 95% CI 1.43–2.38, P < 0.001). Rates of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression were significantly increased after disasters. Findings for anxiety and alcohol misuse/dependence were not significant. High rates of heterogeneity suggest that disaster-specific factors and, to a lesser degree, methodological factors contribute to the variance between studies.ConclusionsIncreased rates of psychological distress and psychiatric disorders follow natural disasters. High levels of heterogeneity between studies suggest that disaster variables and post-disaster response have the potential to mitigate adverse effects.Declaration of interestNone.

Objective: To provide practical clinical guidance for the treatment of adults with panic disorder, social anxiety disorder and generalised anxiety disorder in Australia and New Zealand. Method:Relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials were identified by searching PsycINFO, Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases. Additional relevant studies were identified from reference lists of identified articles, grey literature and literature known to the working group. Evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations were formulated by synthesising the evidence from efficacy studies, considering effectiveness in routine practice, accessibility and availability of treatment options in Australia and New Zealand, fidelity, acceptability to patients, safety and costs. The draft guidelines were reviewed by expert and clinical advisors, key stakeholders, professional bodies, and specialist groups with interest and expertise in anxiety disorders. Results:The guidelines recommend a pragmatic approach beginning with psychoeducation and advice on lifestyle factors, followed by initial treatment selected in collaboration with the patient from evidence-based options, taking into account symptom severity, patient preference, accessibility and cost. Recommended initial treatment options for all three anxiety disorders are cognitive-behavioural therapy (face-to-face or delivered by computer, tablet or smartphone application), pharmacotherapy (a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor together with advice about graded exposure to anxiety triggers), or the combination of cognitive-behavioural therapy and pharmacotherapy.

These results must be considered preliminary but are congruous with previous clinical psychopharmacologic evidence of involvement of the benzodiazepine-GABA(A) receptor and demonstrate that decreased flumazenil binding at this site may underlie panic disorder.